Related
I'm making a parser for a DSL in Haskell using Alex + Happy.
My DSL uses dice rolls as part of the possible expressions.
Sometimes I have an expression that I want to parse that looks like:
[some code...] 3D6 [... rest of the code]
Which should translate roughly to:
TokenInt {... value = 3}, TokenD, TokenInt {... value = 6}
My DSL also uses variables (basically, Strings), so I have a special token that handle variable names.
So, with this tokens:
"D" { \pos str -> TokenD pos }
$alpha [$alpha $digit \_ \']* { \pos str -> TokenName pos str}
$digit+ { \pos str -> TokenInt pos (read str) }
The result I'm getting when using my parse now is:
TokenInt {... value = 3}, TokenName { ... , name = "D6"}
Which means that my lexer "reads" an Integer and a Variable named "D6".
I have tried many things, for example, i changed the token D to:
$digit "D" $digit { \pos str -> TokenD pos }
But that just consumes the digits :(
Can I parse the dice roll with the numbers?
Or at least parse TokenInt-TokenD-TokenInt?
PS: I'm using PosN as a wrapper, not sure if relevant.
The way I'd go about it would be to extend the TokenD type to TokenD Int Int so using the basic wrapper for convenience I would do
$digit+ D $digit+ { dice }
...
dice :: String -> Token
dice s = TokenD (read $ head ls) (read $ last ls)
where ls = split 'D' s
split can be found here.
This is an extra step that'd usually be done in during syntactic analysis but doesn't hurt much here.
Also I can't make Alex parse $alpha for TokenD instead of TokenName. If we had Di instead of D that'd be no problem. From Alex's docs:
When the input stream matches more than one rule, the rule which matches the longest prefix of the input stream wins. If there are still several rules which match an equal number of characters, then the rule which appears earliest in the file wins.
But then your code should work. I don't know if this is an issue with Alex.
I decided that I could survive with variables starting with lowercase letters (like Haskell variables), so I changed my lexer to parse variables only if they start with a lowercase letter.
That also solved some possible problems with some other reserved words.
I'm still curious to know if there were other solutions, but the problem in itself was solved.
Thank you all!
I was wondering if there is a general convention for the usage of semicolons in Lua, and if so, where/why should I use them? I come from a programming background, so ending statements with a semicolon seems intuitively correct. However I was concerned as to why they are "optional" when its generally accepted that semicolons end statements in other programming languages. Perhaps there is some benefit?
For example: From the lua programming guide, these are all acceptable, equivalent, and syntactically accurate:
a = 1
b = a*2
a = 1;
b = a*2;
a = 1 ; b = a*2
a = 1 b = a*2 -- ugly, but valid
The author also mentions: Usually, I use semicolons only to separate two or more statements written in the same line, but this is just a convention.
Is this generally accepted by the Lua community, or is there another way that is preferred by most? Or is it as simple as my personal preference?
Semi-colons in Lua are generally only required when writing multiple statements on a line.
So for example:
local a,b=1,2; print(a+b)
Alternatively written as:
local a,b=1,2
print(a+b)
Off the top of my head, I can't remember any other time in Lua where I had to use a semi-colon.
Edit: looking in the lua 5.2 reference I see one other common place where you'd need to use semi-colons to avoid ambiguity - where you have a simple statement followed by a function call or parens to group a compound statement. here is the manual example located here:
--[[ Function calls and assignments can start with an open parenthesis. This
possibility leads to an ambiguity in the Lua grammar. Consider the
following fragment: ]]
a = b + c
(print or io.write)('done')
-- The grammar could see it in two ways:
a = b + c(print or io.write)('done')
a = b + c; (print or io.write)('done')
in local variable and function definition. Here I compare two quite similar sample codes to illustrate my point of view.
local f; f = function() function-body end
local f = function() function-body end
These two functions can return different results when the function-body section contains reference to variable "f".
Many programming languages (including Lua) that do not require semicolons have a convention to not use them, except for separating multiple statements on the same line.
Javascript is an important exception, which generally uses semicolons by convention.
Kotlin is also technically an exception. The Kotlin Documentation say not only not to use semicolons on non-batched statements, but also to
Omit semicolons whenever possible.
In local variable definitions, we get ambiguous results from time to time:
local a, b = string.find("hello world", "hello") --> a = nil, b = nil
while sometimes a and b are assigned the right values 7 and 11.
So I found no choice but to follow one of these two approaches:
local a, b; a, b = string.find("hello world", "hello") --> a, b = 7, 11
local a, b
a, b = string.find("hello world", "hello") --> a, b = 7, 11
For having more than one thing on a line, for example:
c=5
a=1+c
print(a) -- 6
could be shortened to:
c=5; a=1+c; print(a) -- 6
also worth noting that if you're used to Javascript, or something like that, where you have to end a line in a semicolon, and you're especially used to writing that, then this means that you won't have to remove that semicolon, and trust me, i'm used to Javascript too, and I really, really forget that you don't need the semicolon, every time I write a new line!
I'm having trouble working out how to use any of the functions in the Text.Parsec.Indent module provided by the indents package for Haskell, which is a sort of add-on for Parsec.
What do all these functions do? How are they to be used?
I can understand the brief Haddock description of withBlock, and I've found examples of how to use withBlock, runIndent and the IndentParser type here, here and here. I can also understand the documentation for the four parsers indentBrackets and friends. But many things are still confusing me.
In particular:
What is the difference between withBlock f a p and
do aa <- a
pp <- block p
return f aa pp
Likewise, what's the difference between withBlock' a p and do {a; block p}
In the family of functions indented and friends, what is ‘the level of the reference’? That is, what is ‘the reference’?
Again, with the functions indented and friends, how are they to be used? With the exception of withPos, it looks like they take no arguments and are all of type IParser () (IParser defined like this or this) so I'm guessing that all they can do is to produce an error or not and that they should appear in a do block, but I can't figure out the details.
I did at least find some examples on the usage of withPos in the source code, so I can probably figure that out if I stare at it for long enough.
<+/> comes with the helpful description “<+/> is to indentation sensitive parsers what ap is to monads” which is great if you want to spend several sessions trying to wrap your head around ap and then work out how that's analogous to a parser. The other three combinators are then defined with reference to <+/>, making the whole group unapproachable to a newcomer.
Do I need to use these? Can I just ignore them and use do instead?
The ordinary lexeme combinator and whiteSpace parser from Parsec will happily consume newlines in the middle of a multi-token construct without complaining. But in an indentation-style language, sometimes you want to stop parsing a lexical construct or throw an error if a line is broken and the next line is indented less than it should be. How do I go about doing this in Parsec?
In the language I am trying to parse, ideally the rules for when a lexical structure is allowed to continue on to the next line should depend on what tokens appear at the end of the first line or the beginning of the subsequent line. Is there an easy way to achieve this in Parsec? (If it is difficult then it is not something which I need to concern myself with at this time.)
So, the first hint is to take a look at IndentParser
type IndentParser s u a = ParsecT s u (State SourcePos) a
I.e. it's a ParsecT keeping an extra close watch on SourcePos, an abstract container which can be used to access, among other things, the current column number. So, it's probably storing the current "level of indentation" in SourcePos. That'd be my initial guess as to what "level of reference" means.
In short, indents gives you a new kind of Parsec which is context sensitive—in particular, sensitive to the current indentation. I'll answer your questions out of order.
(2) The "level of reference" is the "belief" referred in the current parser context state of where this indentation level starts. To be more clear, let me give some test cases on (3).
(3) In order to start experimenting with these functions, we'll build a little test runner. It'll run the parser with a string that we give it and then unwrap the inner State part using an initialPos which we get to modify. In code
import Text.Parsec
import Text.Parsec.Pos
import Text.Parsec.Indent
import Control.Monad.State
testParse :: (SourcePos -> SourcePos)
-> IndentParser String () a
-> String -> Either ParseError a
testParse f p src = fst $ flip runState (f $ initialPos "") $ runParserT p () "" src
(Note that this is almost runIndent, except I gave a backdoor to modify the initialPos.)
Now we can take a look at indented. By examining the source, I can tell it does two things. First, it'll fail if the current SourcePos column number is less-than-or-equal-to the "level of reference" stored in the SourcePos stored in the State. Second, it somewhat mysteriously updates the State SourcePos's line counter (not column counter) to be current.
Only the first behavior is important, to my understanding. We can see the difference here.
>>> testParse id indented ""
Left (line 1, column 1): not indented
>>> testParse id (spaces >> indented) " "
Right ()
>>> testParse id (many (char 'x') >> indented) "xxxx"
Right ()
So, in order to have indented succeed, we need to have consumed enough whitespace (or anything else!) to push our column position out past the "reference" column position. Otherwise, it'll fail saying "not indented". Similar behavior exists for the next three functions: same fails unless the current position and reference position are on the same line, sameOrIndented fails if the current column is strictly less than the reference column, unless they are on the same line, and checkIndent fails unless the current and reference columns match.
withPos is slightly different. It's not just a IndentParser, it's an IndentParser-combinator—it transforms the input IndentParser into one that thinks the "reference column" (the SourcePos in the State) is exactly where it was when we called withPos.
This gives us another hint, btw. It lets us know we have the power to change the reference column.
(1) So now let's take a look at how block and withBlock work using our new, lower level reference column operators. withBlock is implemented in terms of block, so we'll start with block.
-- simplified from the actual source
block p = withPos $ many1 (checkIndent >> p)
So, block resets the "reference column" to be whatever the current column is and then consumes at least 1 parses from p so long as each one is indented identically as this newly set "reference column". Now we can take a look at withBlock
withBlock f a p = withPos $ do
r1 <- a
r2 <- option [] (indented >> block p)
return (f r1 r2)
So, it resets the "reference column" to the current column, parses a single a parse, tries to parse an indented block of ps, then combines the results using f. Your implementation is almost correct, except that you need to use withPos to choose the correct "reference column".
Then, once you have withBlock, withBlock' = withBlock (\_ bs -> bs).
(5) So, indented and friends are exactly the tools to doing this: they'll cause a parse to immediately fail if it's indented incorrectly with respect to the "reference position" chosen by withPos.
(4) Yes, don't worry about these guys until you learn how to use Applicative style parsing in base Parsec. It's often a much cleaner, faster, simpler way of specifying parses. Sometimes they're even more powerful, but if you understand Monads then they're almost always completely equivalent.
(6) And this is the crux. The tools mentioned so far can only do indentation failure if you can describe your intended indentation using withPos. Quickly, I don't think it's possible to specify withPos based on the success or failure of other parses... so you'll have to go another level deeper. Fortunately, the mechanism that makes IndentParsers work is obvious—it's just an inner State monad containing SourcePos. You can use lift :: MonadTrans t => m a -> t m a to manipulate this inner state and set the "reference column" however you like.
Cheers!
I'm writing a compiler for a javascript like language for fun. aka I'm learning about the wheel so I make one for myself and trying to find out everything but now I got stuck.
I know that shunting yard algorithm is a nice one when parsing simple infix expressions. I was able to figure out how to extend this algorithm for prefix and postfix operators too and also able to parse simple functions.
For example: 2+3*a(3,5)+b(3,5) turns into 2 3 <G> 3 5 a () * + <G> 3 5 b () +
(<G> is a guard token that is pushed on the stack it will store the return address etc. () is the call command that calls the function on the top of the stack that pops out the necessary amount of arguments and pushes back the result on return.)
If the function name is just one token I can simply mark it as function symbol if directly followed by a parenthesis. During the process if I encounter a function symbol I push it on the operator stack and pop it out when I finished converting the parameters.
This is working so far.
But if I add the option to have member functions, the . operator. The things get more tricky. For example I want to convert the a.b.c(12)+d.e.f(34) I can't mark c and f to be functions because a.b.c and d.e.f are functions. If I start my parser on an expression like this the result will be a b . <G> 12 c () . d e . <G> 34 f () . Which is obviously wrong. I want it to be <G> 12 a b . c . () <G> 34 d e . f. () Which appears correct.
But of curse I can make the things more complicated if I add some parentheses: (a.b.c)(). Or I make a function that returns a function which I call again: f(a,b)(c,d).
Is there an easy way handle these tricky situations?
A problem of your approach is that you treat object and its member as two separate tokens separated by .. Classical Shunting yard algorithm knows nothing about OOP and relies on single token for function call. So the first way to resolve you problem is to use one token for a call of an object member -- i.e. entire a.b.c must be a single token.
You may also refer to automatic parser generators for another solution of your problem. They allow to define complete grammar of your target language (JavaScript) as a set of formal rules and generate parser automatically. List of popular tools includes tools that generates parser on different programming languages: ANTLR, Bison + Lex, Lemon + Ragel.
--artem
(I saw this question is still alive. I found the solution for it myself.)
First I threat the (...) and [...] expressions as one token and expand them (recursively) when needed. Then I detect the function calls and array subscripts. If there isn't an infix operator before a parenthesized token, then that's a function call or an array subscript, so I insert a special call-function or access operator there. With this modification it works like charm.
I have read the GOLD Homepage ( http://www.devincook.com/goldparser/ ) docs, FAQ and Wikipedia to find out what practical application there could possibly be for GOLD. I was thinking along the lines of having a programming language (easily) available to my systems such as ABAP on SAP or X++ on Axapta - but it doesn't look feasible to me, at least not easily - even if you use GOLD.
The final use of the parsed result produced by GOLD escapes me - what do you do with the result of the parse?
EDIT: A practical example (description) would be great.
Parsing really consists of two phases. The first is "lexing", which convert the raw strings of character in to something that the program can more readily understand (commonly called tokens).
Simple example, lex would convert:
if (a + b > 2) then
In to:
IF_TOKEN LEFT_PAREN IDENTIFIER(a) PLUS_SIGN IDENTIFIER(b) GREATER_THAN NUMBER(2) RIGHT_PAREN THEN_TOKEN
The parse takes that stream of tokens, and attempts to make yet more sense out of them. In this case, it would try and match up those tokens to an IF_STATEMENT. To the parse, the IF _STATEMENT may well look like this:
IF ( BOOLEAN_EXPRESSION ) THEN
Where the result of the lexing phase is a token stream, the result of the parsing phase is a Parse Tree.
So, a parser could convert the above in to:
if_statement
|
v
boolean_expression.operator = GREATER_THAN
| |
| v
V numeric_constant.string="2"
expression.operator = PLUS_SIGN
| |
| v
v identifier.string = "b"
identifier.string = "a"
Here you see we have an IF_STATEMENT. An IF_STATEMENT has a single argument, which is a BOOLEAN_EXPRESSION. This was explained in some manner to the parser. When the parser is converting the token stream, it "knows" what a IF looks like, and know what a BOOLEAN_EXPRESSION looks like, so it can make the proper assignments when it sees the code.
For example, if you have just:
if (a + b) then
The parser could know that it's not a boolean expression (because the + is arithmetic, not a boolean operator) and the parse could throw an error at this point.
Next, we see that a BOOLEAN_EXPRESSION has 3 components, the operator (GREATER_THAN), and two sides, the left side and the right side.
On the left side, it points to yet another expression, the "a + b", while on the right is points to a NUMERIC_CONSTANT, in this case the string "2". Again, the parser "knows" this is a NUMERIC constant because we told it about strings of numbers. If it wasn't numbers, it would be an IDENTIFIER (like "a" and "b" are).
Note, that if we had something like:
if (a + b > "XYZ") then
That "parses" just fine (expression on the left, string constant on the right). We don't know from looking at this whether this is a valid expression or not. We don't know if "a" or "b" reference Strings or Numbers at this point. So, this is something the parser can't decided for us, can't flag as an error, as it simply doesn't know. That will happen when we evaluate (either execute or try to compile in to code) the IF statement.
If we did:
if [a > b ) then
The parser can readily see that syntax error as a problem, and will throw an error. That string of tokens doesn't look like anything it knows about.
So, the point being that when you get a complete parse tree, you have some assurance that at first cut the "code looks good". Now during execution, other errors may well come up.
To evaluate the parse tree, you just walk the tree. You'll have some code associated with the major nodes of the parse tree during the compile or evaluation part. Let's assuming that we have an interpreter.
public void execute_if_statment(ParseTreeNode node) {
// We already know we have a IF_STATEMENT node
Value value = evaluate_expression(node.getBooleanExpression());
if (value.getBooleanResult() == true) {
// we do the "then" part of the code
}
}
public Value evaluate_expression(ParseTreeNode node) {
Value result = null;
if (node.isConstant()) {
result = evaluate_constant(node);
return result;
}
if (node.isIdentifier()) {
result = lookupIdentifier(node);
return result;
}
Value leftSide = evaluate_expression(node.getLeftSide());
Value rightSide = evaluate_expression(node.getRightSide());
if (node.getOperator() == '+') {
if (!leftSide.isNumber() || !rightSide.isNumber()) {
throw new RuntimeError("Must have numbers for adding");
}
int l = leftSide.getIntValue();
int r = rightSide.getIntValue();
int sum = l + r;
return new Value(sum);
}
if (node.getOperator() == '>') {
if (leftSide.getType() != rightSide.getType()) {
throw new RuntimeError("You can only compare values of the same type");
}
if (leftSide.isNumber()) {
int l = leftSide.getIntValue();
int r = rightSide.getIntValue();
boolean greater = l > r;
return new Value(greater);
} else {
// do string compare instead
}
}
}
So, you can see that we have a recursive evaluator here. You see how we're checking the run time types, and performing the basic evaluations.
What will happen is the execute_if_statement will evaluate it's main expression. Even tho we wanted only BOOLEAN_EXPRESION in the parse, all expressions are mostly the same for our purposes. So, execute_if_statement calls evaluate_expression.
In our system, all expressions have an operator and a left and right side. Each side of an expression is ALSO an expression, so you can see how we immediately try and evaluate those as well to get their real value. The one note is that if the expression consists of a CONSTANT, then we simply return the constants value, if it's an identifier, we look it up as a variable (and that would be a good place to throw a "I can't find the variable 'a'" message), otherwise we're back to the left side/right side thing.
I hope you can see how a simple evaluator can work once you have a token stream from a parser. Note how during evaluation, the major elements of the language are in place, otherwise we'd have got a syntax error and never got to this phase. We can simply expect to "know" that when we have a, for example, PLUS operator, we're going to have 2 expressions, the left and right side. Or when we execute an IF statement, that we already have a boolean expression to evaluate. The parse is what does that heavy lifting for us.
Getting started with a new language can be a challenge, but you'll find once you get rolling, the rest become pretty straightforward and it's almost "magic" that it all works in the end.
Note, pardon the formatting, but underscores are messing things up -- I hope it's still clear.
I would recommend antlr.org for information and the 'free' tool I would use for any parser use.
GOLD can be used for any kind of application where you have to apply context-free grammars to input.
elaboration:
Essentially, CFGs apply to all programming languages. So if you wanted to develop a scripting language for your company, you'd need to write a parser- or get a parsing program. Alternatively, if you wanted to have a semi-natural language for input for non-programmers in the company, you could use a parser to read that input and spit out more "machine-readable" data. Essentially, a context-free grammar allows you to describe far more inputs than a regular expression. The GOLD system apparently makes the parsing problem somewhat easier than lex/yacc(the UNIX standard programs for parsing).